real video vs windows media 9 vs xvid/divx

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Mike Henley, Nov 7, 2003.

  1. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    After almost a month of random testing now whenever i get the chance,
    i really found that the helix producer was the least hassle way, and
    produced the best video compression of the whole lot.

    It instantly and easily provided VBR video and audio, automatically
    did first and second pass, and the quality and file size of the final
    video and accompanying audio was the best of all options i looked at,
    which included windows media 9 encoder and also movie maker including
    movie maker 2, virtualdub with various formats including xvid and
    divx, and almost all others included in the kazaa codec pack full...

    i'm talking about encoding for 100kb or 256kb... windows media
    produced sound of awful quality at anything less than DSL... the video
    quality wasn't all that good either... it was a big big hog on the
    computer resources that once it was on i couldn't do anything else...
    unlike real which worked in the background and i could still surf and
    do whatever...

    xvid and divx didn't give any advantages for the archival use i was
    doing and produced files of larger size and arguably less quality than
    real for file size... they lacked the simplicity of an encoder like
    the helix producer and the VBR option was a little annoying as it had
    to be done manually or use an external script...

    is this the experience of you guys or am i missing something...
     
    Mike Henley, Nov 7, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike Henley

    Valerie Guest

    Hi,

    In all seriousness, you're missing the fact that Real has been rapidly
    losing it's player's market penetration ever since v9 came out. It's
    big, it's bloated, and full of ads. People don't like it. Unless you've
    got "really spectacular" porn, nobody is going to download the player to
    watch your content.

    If you want to make your files viewable by the largest audience, stick
    with WMV, QuickTime or MPEG-4.


    Valerie
     
    Valerie, Nov 8, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike Henley

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    And VCD-compatible MPEG-1.

    It's more compatible and viewable than WMV, QT or MPEG-4.
     
    Nomen Nescio, Nov 8, 2003
    #3
  4. Mike Henley

    Valerie Guest

    It's not as an effcient codec for web download bandwidth rates. Try
    comparing WMV9, MPEG-4 or QT w/Sorenson 3 Pro at 768Kbps (or even lower
    if you prefer, say 440) with the same with MPEG-1. You'll see what I
    mean.



    Valerie
     
    Valerie, Nov 10, 2003
    #4
  5. Mike Henley

    Randy Brown Guest

    There's no question that Real Media is all the things you say it is -- big,
    bloated, full of ads and people don't like it. I could actually add to that
    list and say some more nasty things about Real. I hate it for a whole bunch
    of reasons.

    That said, there's one simple fact that many of us can't get around.

    My ISP, which hosts my two commercial domains (and don't ask me to switch
    ISPs) supports Real Media, and does not count streaming of Real Media
    content against my monthly bandwidth allotment.

    Sure, I could put my video samples up in some other format. It would
    probably look better, most people would prefer it that way, blah, blah,
    blah. But with the size of video, and with the number of people that I hope
    will view it, I could pretty quickly go over my monthly bandwidth allotment
    and the unexpected charges could start ringing the cash register -- my ISP's
    cash register (and taking it out of my bank account).

    So for people like me, Real Media is the only sensible way to go for online
    streaming of video.

    I wish more ISPs would wake up and realize, as so many of us have, that Real
    is a real PITA.

    But if I'm to believe what I'm told by the folks at my ISP, it comes down to
    a business decision for them. Real Networks, Inc. have made the licensing
    fees very affordable for ISPs to support their products. The minute Apple
    (Quick Time) and Microsoft (Windows Media) wake up and see the value in
    making their licenses even more affordable, we'll probably be rid of Real,
    once and for all.

    Write your Congressman. :)

    Randy
     
    Randy Brown, Nov 11, 2003
    #5
  6. Mike Henley

    Samuel Paik Guest

    Your ISP is offering excuses, either they don't know how to stream
    QuickTime or Windows Media or they do and have some other reason:

    QuickTime Streaming Server is bundled with MacOS X Server and has
    no additional license fees or per-stream charges for use. Darwin
    Streaming Server is the multi-platform version and is free and
    open source.

    Windows Media Services 4.1 is either bundled or a free download
    for supported operating systems (Windows NT Server 4.0, Windows
    2000 Server, Windows 2000 Advanced Server) and has no additional
    license fees or per-stream charges for use. Windows Media Services
    9 Series is bundled with Windows Server 2003 and has no
    additional license fees or per-stream charges for use.

    <http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/streaming/>
    <http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qtss/>

    <http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/technologies/services.aspx>
    <http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/server.aspx>

    As for RealMedia, Helix Universal Server is a nontrivial expense
    for non-trivial amounts of streaming. (Basic is free but limited
    to 1 Mbits/sec, Standard is $2K and limited to 4 Mbits/sec, and
    I don't have prices for the full version but I think it can get
    up there.) I don't know the current state of the open source
    Helix DNA Server.

    (URLs for completeness)
    <http://www.realnetworks.com/products/server/index.html>
    <http://forms.real.com/rnforms/products/servers/eval/mbps.html>
    <http://www.helixcommunity.org/>

    Sam
     
    Samuel Paik, Nov 11, 2003
    #6
  7. Mike Henley

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    Certainly it's not as efficient, but it's far more compatible.

    Especially when compared to something like WMV.
     
    Nomen Nescio, Nov 11, 2003
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.